Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings - washingtonpost.com
So now BushCo is claiming that if the President invokes "executive privilege," the Congress has no right to hold in contempt anybody covered by said invocation.
Meaning, "people" (and I use the word lightly) like Harriet Miers can snub their noses at Congress and tell them to fuck off if the President tells them not to testify before Congress.
I say, Congress, call their bluff. Might as well send us all down the well pronto rather than drag out our demise to totalitarianism. And you know what, you may just win. I hope, god I hope, the public is smart enough to figure this out: George Bush, Dick Cheney, and "Alberto" Gonzales want to return you to fiefdom, where they hold the power and money, and you hold the plow.
So now BushCo is claiming that if the President invokes "executive privilege," the Congress has no right to hold in contempt anybody covered by said invocation.
Meaning, "people" (and I use the word lightly) like Harriet Miers can snub their noses at Congress and tell them to fuck off if the President tells them not to testify before Congress.
I say, Congress, call their bluff. Might as well send us all down the well pronto rather than drag out our demise to totalitarianism. And you know what, you may just win. I hope, god I hope, the public is smart enough to figure this out: George Bush, Dick Cheney, and "Alberto" Gonzales want to return you to fiefdom, where they hold the power and money, and you hold the plow.
Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.
0 comments:
Post a Comment